Highland Council Minute

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Highland Council held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 23 June 2011 at 11.45am.

Mr H Wood opened the meeting with prayer.

1. Calling of the Roll and Apologies for Absence

Present:

Mr G Farlow, Ms L Munro, Mr R Rowantree, Mr J Rosie, Lady M Thurso, Mr B Fernie, Ms G Ross, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr D Flear, Mrs D Mackay, Mr J McGillivray, Mr I Ross, Mrs I Campbell, Dr A Sinclair, Mr M Finlayson, Mr M Rattray, Ms M Smith, Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham, Mr A Rhind, Mr P Cairns, Mrs A MacLean, Dr D Alston, Mr B Barclay, Mr C Fraser, Mrs I McCallum, Mr H Fraser, Mr J Laing, Mr D Millar, Mr I Renwick, Mr B Clark, Mr A Henderson, Mr E Hunter, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Hendry, Mr H Wood, Mr A Graham, Mr A Christie, Mrs P Munro, Miss J Campbell, Mr P Corbett, Mr D Kerr, Mrs B McAllister, Mr N Donald,Mr D Henderson, Mr F Parr,Mr I Brown, Mr J Gray, Mr K MacLeod, Mr J Ford, Mrs G Sinclair, Mr B Wynd, Mr L Fraser, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr G Marsden, Mr A S Park, Mr J Crawford, Mr J Holden, Mr R Pedersen, Mr T Prag, Mr S Black, Ms J Douglas, Mr D Fallows, Mr G Rimell, Mr D Cameron, Dr M Foxley, Mr B Gormley, Mr B J Murphy.

In Attendance:

Chief Executive
Depute Chief Executive
Director of Education, Culture and Sport
Director of Housing and Property
Assistant Chief Executive
Director of Planning and Development
Director of TEC Services
Director of Social Work

Mr A S Park in the Chair

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr D MacKay, Mr R Coghill, Mr W MacKay, Mr R Greene, Mrs J Urquhart, Mrs F Robertson, Mr D Chisholm, Mrs M Paterson, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr J Finnie and Mr R Balfour.

Preliminaries

Prior to the commencement of the formal business, the Convener advised that he had taken forward an emergency item in regard to the implications of the possible closure of Fort George and it was AGREED that this item should be considered as Item 3(a) on the agenda.

The Convener also took the opportunity to personally thank Members for their support during his recent period of convalescence.

Reference was also made to the Freedom of Kingussie ceremony which had taken place the previous weekend for the ex Highland Councillor, Tom Wade, and the Convener expressed his thanks to all those concerned in the organisation of the event and for the warm hospitality which had been shown to him on the day.

2. Declarations of Interest

The Council NOTED the following declarations of interest –

Item 18 – Mr A Henderson (Non Financial)
Item 36 – Mr I Ross, Mr J Gray, Mr J Laing and Mr D Henderson (Non Financial)
Item 36 – Mr D Kerr (Financial)

3. Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme – Gold Award Presentation

The Council was advised that fourteen young people from across the Highlands were due to receive the Gold Award in the current year.

Following a summary of their achievements, the Convener presented Gold Award badges to the following six recipients who were present at the meeting:

Iain MacGillivray
Liam Ross
Struan Charters
Elizabeth Pirie
Johanne Hurren
Robert Findlay

Additional Item 3(a)

Fort George – Implications of Closure

There had been tabled Report No. Item 3a HC-11a-11 (59kb pdf) dated 22 June 2011 by the Director of Planning and Development which confirmed that the UK Government was currently undergoing a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and was considering the future requirements for a whole range of military establishments, including Fort George, Lossiemouth and Kinloss. In this regard, the report outlined the potential implications of these closures for the Highlands and, in particular, upon the Inverness area if Fort George was to close.

During a summary of the report, it was advised that the latest Ministry of Defence (MOD) statistics had confirmed that 560 personnel were currently stationed in the Highland Council area, including 40 Officers and 520 other ranks. The majority were military personnel from the Black Watch and the 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland who were stationed at Fort George and in addition the nearby Cameron Barracks in Inverness provided recruitment and administrative services.

In this regard, no formal economic assessment had been undertaken to understand the implications for the Highland economy as a result of possible closure although Highlands & Islands Enterprise were currently instructing a Consultant to make a more formal assessment of the situation. However, if the average annual salary of the military personnel employed at the base was estimated at £25,000, then it was envisaged that approximately £14m would be lost from the local economy. Furthermore, the impact of the removal of the spend of military personnel and their families would result in the potential loss of a further 112 jobs.

It was also confirmed that at present there were 220 MOD homes in the Raigmore area and the implications for educational provision in that area of Inverness from any closure would also be significant.

In addition, Fort George was a significant visitor attraction operated by Historic Scotland and including the Highlanders Museum and in this regard it currently attracted approximately 66,000 visitors per year. There were also ambitious redevelopment plans for the Museum and this £3m project had the potential to contribute an additional £400k into the local economy and to create 8 full time equivalent posts.

In addition, the wider Inner Moray Firth area had already seen the announcement of the closure of RAF Kinloss with job losses of approximately 2,300 and the loss of £68m of income. There was also continued uncertainty over the future of RAF Lossiemouth with a further 3,400 jobs at risk and £90m of income.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

these were very unwelcome rumours and there was a need to be prepared and for some initial steps to be taken, including working with partners to establish a solid evidence base around the potential implications, impacts and consequences for the area;
there would be a cumulative impact on the Moray coast in view of other recent events in the area, such as the closure of RAF Kinloss, and this would be a hammer blow for the local economy which would be patently unfair;
the current wording in the report stated that the Council should “express its concern about the potential closure” and it was suggested that this should be amended to “express its opposition to the closure of..” as it was incumbent upon the Council to make a very clear statement on this issue;
in view of the potential impact on the community of Ardersier in particular, it was suggested that the membership of the proposed Consultation Group should be widened to include the Local Members for Ward 18;
there would also be a major impact on the Millburn Ward in regard to the current location of both the Primary and Secondary Schools;
Fort George had been in operation since the 18th century and it was vital that it was preserved for the area in view of its historical connections; and
there was also a need to consider the future of the Cameron Barracks and to include it in any representations which were to be made to protect and promote all military facilities in the area.

Decision

The Council AGREED to write to Dr Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for Defence, and Mr Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, expressing opposition to the closure of Fort George which was particularly important due to the announcement of the closure of RAF Kinloss and the uncertainty surrounding RAF Lossiemouth.

It was also AGREED to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to take appropriate action in the event of any further development regarding the future of Fort George in consultation with the Convener, Chair of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee, Provost of Inverness, Leader of the Administration, Leader of the Opposition and the Local Members for Ward 18.

4. By-Election – Ward 8 (Tain and Easter Ross)

It was NOTED that, at the By-Election held on 9 June 2011, Mrs Fiona Robertson, Tigh-Na-Sonas, Newton, Tain had been elected as the Member for Ward 8 (Tain and Easter Ross).

5. Standing Orders Relating to the Conduct of Meetings

There had been circulated Report No. Item 5 HC-12-11 (10kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined proposed amendment to the Standing Orders Relating to the Conduct of Meetings as follows –

Standing Order 11 - current wording – At a meeting of the Council, the Convener of the Council or, in the event of the Convener’s absence, the Leader of the Council’s Administration will preside. If the Convener and the Leader of the Council’s Administration are both absent, the Chief Executive will preside until the Members of the Council choose one of their number to preside.

Proposed wording – At a meeting of the Council, the Convener of the Council or, in the event of the Convener’s absence, the Chair of the Resources Committee will preside. If the Convener and the Chair of the Resources Committee are both absent, the Chief Executive will preside until the Members of the Council choose one of their number to preside.

Decision

The Council AGREED the proposed amendment as detailed.

6. Confirmation of Minutes

There had been submitted for confirmation as correct records the Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 12 May 2011 as contained in the Volume which had been circulated separately which were APPROVED.

There had also been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Special Joint Meeting between the Highland Council and the NHS Highland Board held on 12 May 2011 which were APPROVED.

7. Minutes of Meetings of Committees

There had been submitted for confirmation as correct records, for information as regards delegated business, and for approval as appropriate, the Minutes of Meetings of Committees contained in the Volume circulated separately as undernoted:-

|Link to Minutes Index|

Housing and Social Work Committee, 9 March
Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 10 March
Planning, Environment and Development Committee, 16 March
Transport, Environmental and Community Services Committee, 17 March
Joint Committee on Children and Young People, 18 March
Resources Committee, 6 April
Audit and Scrutiny Committee, 7 April
Gaelic Committee, 7 April
Inverness City Committee, 18 April

The Minutes, having been moved and seconded, were, except as undernoted, APPROVED - matters arising having been dealt with as follows:-

Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 19 May

Notice of Amendment – Item 7 – Facilities Management Project – Milton of Leys Primary School

With reference to Page 178, Item 7, of the Minutes of Meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee of 19 May 2011 as contained in the Volume and circulated separately, the following Notice of Amendment had been received in accordance with Standing Order 10.3 –

“The Highland SNP Group oppose the decision taken by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on 19 May 2011 in relation to Item 7 on the agenda – Facilities Management – and propose instead that the Council should note the proposed first phase of a new model for Facilities Management replacing the previous Janitorial arrangements at Milton of Leys. As it is clear that this model is intended to be rolled out across the Highlands, the introduction of this model should be considered as a pilot. Full criteria for the determination of success should be laid down and a report on the pilot outcomes should be brought to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee before further implementation of the arrangements.”

Signed

Mr B Gormley, Ms M Smith, Mr D Kerr, Mr P Cairns, Mr R Pedersen, Mr D Hendry
Mr D Fallows, Mr C Fraser

In this connection, there had been re-circulated Report No. ECS/25/11 dated 21 April 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the consensus of opinion which had arisen during the debate at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting had been that there was a need to consider this issue but with a degree of caution e.g. cognisance needed to be given to the special relationship which existed in some schools between the janitor and the rest of the school community and to what extent this would be affected by the proposed changes, and this had been reflected in the terms of the Notice of Amendment;
it was really important this project should be treated as a pilot in the first instance in order to test the strengths and weaknesses of the new proposals before rolling out further across the Highlands;
feedback had been received from Trade Union representatives in Caithness whereby they had confirmed that they would prefer to see the project treated as pilot in the first instance in order that any potential problems could be resolved prior to further roll out; and
the project at Milton of Leys was to be evaluated and modified where necessary before further roll out and assurances had been sought and received from the Chair and Vice Chair at the meeting that a very full and comprehensive report would be brought back to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

Thereafter, Mr B Fernie, seconded by Mr D Millar, MOVED approval of the recommendations from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee of 19 May in regard to Item 7 – Facilities Management Project – Milton of Leys Primary School.

As an AMENDMENT, Mr B Gormley, seconded by Ms M Smith, moved the terms of the Notice of Amendment as detailed.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 48 votes and the AMENDMENT received 17 votes with 1 abstention and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion:

Alston, D, Barclay, B, Black, S, Cameron, D, Campbell, I, Campbell, J, Christie, A, Corbett, P, Crawford, J, Davidson, M, Donald, N, Douglas, J, Durham, R, Fernie, B, Finlayson, M, Flear, D, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Graham, A, Gray, J, Henderson, D, Hunter, E, Laing, J, Mackay, D (W5), MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, Marsden, G, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, McGillivray, J, Millar, D, Munro, L, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Prag, T, Rattray, M, Rhind, A, Rimell, G, Rosie, J, Ross, I, Rowantree, R, Sinclair, A, Thurso, M, Wilson, C, Wood, H.

For the Amendment:

Brown, I, Cairns, P, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Hendry, D, Kerr, D, MacDonald, L, Munro, P, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Ross, G, Sinclair, G, Smith, G, Smith, M, Wynd, B.

Absention:

Bremner, D.

Decision

The Council AGREED as follows:-

(i) to approve the initial phase of a facilities management structure in schools
   as detailed in the report and related appendices;
(ii) that further phases, in the Spey Valley and Caithness, should be
   implemented during the next 12 months; and
(iii)that a further report on progress and future phases involving existing
   dedicated school janitors should be brought to the Education, Culture and
   Sport Committee.

Transport, Environmental and Community Services Committee, 26 May

AGREED that the following correction should be made to the Minute:-

List of Members should be amended to record that Mr R Balfour had been in attendance at the meeting (and not Mr T Prag as listed).

Page 212: Item 11: UK Parliament’s Transport Select Committee Inquiry into the Coastguard & Emergency Towing Vessels

NOTED the excellent response into the Inquiry and the hard work undertaken by the Leader of the Administration and staff within the Council which had been vindicated by the evidence which had been published by the Transport Select Committee who had recommended that the UK Government should withdraw its controversial proposals to modernise the Coastguard Service. The Select Committee had also strongly condemned the decision to withdraw the funding for the four Emergency Tugs.

Resources Committee, 8 June

Page 240: Item 6: Near Final Revenue Monitoring Statement

AGREED that the Minute should be corrected to confirm that – in relation to rec (iii) – loan charges would be reconciled on a monthly basis in future to allow the impact of any variances on the budget to be assessed as early as possible.

Page 245: Item 15: ICT Transformation Programme – Computer Refresh Roll-Out Project

AGREED that the Minute should be amended to reflect an assurance which had been given at the meeting that if Officers required to make any further changes for operational reasons, notification would be provided to Members as soon as possible (and if possible in advance of any change being made) in order to highlight the reasons for the change.

Gaelic Committee, 9 June

AGREED that the Minute should include reference to a request which had been made at the end of the meeting that, in addition to the Education, Culture and Sport Service, all other Services of the Council should also report progress on their use and promotion of Gaelic to the Committee.

(Subsequently checked and confirmed that this reference was already included in the Minutes of the Gaelic Committee meeting).

8. Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group held on 15 June 2011 - which were APPROVED – subject to the following –

Page 2: Item 3: Growth of the Woodfuel Sector and its Impact in the Highlands: Fifth Paragraph: Line 2 – replace the word ‘existing’ with ‘proposed’.

9. Climate Change Working Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Climate Change Working Group held on 1 June 2011 – which were APPROVED.

10. Community Benefit Working Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Community Benefit Working Group Minutes of 14 June 2011 (33kb pdf) – which were APPROVED.

At this point, the Convener made reference to the considerable level of work which had been undertaken by Mr Bob Cameron, Corporate Manager (Ross, Skye & Lochaber) who was about to retire from the Council and extended thanks to him on behalf of the Working Group and also the Council.

11. Classroom Support Needs Cross Party Working Group

Declaration of Interest – Mr P Cairns declared a non financial interest in this item on the grounds that his wife was employed by the Council. Having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, he had concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement but confirmed that on this occasion he would not take part in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. Item 11 HC-13-11 (27kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which provided information on the findings and recommendations of the Cross Party Working Group set up to review classroom support needs in the primary sector.

In this regard, there had also been circulated Minutes of Meetings of the Classroom Support Needs Cross Party Working Group held on 17 May 2011 (31kb pdf), 7 June 2011 (29kb pdf) and 15 June 2011 (19kb pdf).

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that, whilst mindful of the Council’s financial background, the Cross Party Working Group had been clear that the review presented the Council with the opportunity to ensure that any future model of classroom support in the primary sector would be child centred and needs driven. In this regard, the Working Group had also been clear that any future support arrangements along with any revised resource allocation mechanisms should be framed to take account of Council and inter-agency developments to support children and families, including closer working with NHS Highland in order to make most effective use of resources and to lessen the likelihood of gaps in support for children’s education and development.

In the course of the review, the Working Group had considered the broad range of needs of young learners in primary schools, the roles, job descriptions and current deployment of classroom and learning support assistants, classroom support models in other Scottish Local Authorities, the current resource allocation models in Highland in relation to classroom assistant and learning support assistant posts, the analysis and response to identified support needs, support for bilingualism in the primary sector (both in regard pupils with English as a second language and pupils in Gaelic Medium immersion classes), representations made by schools, parents and pupils prior to the establishment of the Working Group and also to the Task Group and the potential impact since the establishment of classroom assistant posts of developments relating to pre-school provision and the implementation of Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC).

Taking account of the very detailed work and analysis of the Task Group and its responses to the questions posed by the Working Group, it had been concluded that there was now a need to examine the detail of the future support structures within the primary sector and that the establishment of generic support roles at two levels would provide greater clarity of function and a better framework for meeting the wide spectrum of needs presented in the primary classroom. It had also been concluded that, whilst there was a need to ensure that this detailed work was carried out as quickly as possible, sufficient time would need to be allowed to address all of the detail and for all necessary consultation to be undertaken. It had therefore been agreed that implementation of any new arrangements for support should commence from August 2012 and that a Task Group should be established immediately to consider the details of job descriptions within generic posts and implementation issues and that a report should be submitted to the Cross Party Working Group which would monitor progress and make recommendations on the detail of the revised classroom support arrangements. It had been further agreed that an alternative source of funding should be identified to cover the savings identified for the financial year 2011/12 and that funding implications of future classroom support arrangements should be considered as part of the Council’s ongoing budget setting process.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

there was a need to thank the Cross Party Working Group and the Task Force for the work which had been undertaken to date within a very tight timescale;
in going forward, it was important that there was no pre-determination of what would be required in future in terms of classroom support and that the focus should be on educational, rather than budgetary, needs in the first instance;
this had been a serious review and a considerable amount of work had been undertaken over the previous 4 months which now needed to be progressed;
there were currently three sets of workers in primary schools – classroom assistants, learning support assistants and children’s support workers – and this now required to be reviewed;
early years learning was of paramount importance and it was essential that this was provided at the highest possible level for all children within the Highlands;
this review had the support of a large number of teachers across the Highlands;
there had been some initial reservations about how the review would be undertaken but these had been very quickly dispelled by the progress made by the Working Group and the Task Group and this now represented a ‘good news’ story for the Council;
there were other employees across the Council who were equally concerned about the budget pressures within their Services and this needed to be recognised;
budgetary considerations had been a key part of the remit of the Working Group and the Task Group and, whilst it was prudent to take account of financial issues, this should not have been the starting place for discussions and it was hoped that, in taking the budget pressure out of the equation, this would not be the case going forward;
there was widespread agreement that the work going forward should be child centred and needs driven and in this regard there was an acknowledgement that the existing system of classroom support was long overdue for review, modernisation and being adapted to meet the current demands from the Education Service, parents and teachers;
it was extremely important for the detail around the generic posts to be correct and for the respective roles to be properly defined; and
the input of all political parties within the Council would be welcomed in taking forward the recommendations within the report.

Thereafter, Mr D Millar, seconded by Dr M E M Foxley, MOVED approval of the recommendations as detailed in the report and the Minutes of Meetings of the Cross Party Working Group as circulated.

As an AMENDMENT, Mr D Hendry, seconded by Ms M Smith, moved that the recommendations within the report should be adjusted to remove the proposal for cuts from the remit.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 46 votes and AMENDMENT received 16 votes and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows –

For the Motion:

Alston, D, Barclay, B, Black, S, Bremner, D, Campbell, I, Campbell, J, Christie, A, Corbett, P, Crawford, J, Davidson, M, Douglas, J, Durham, R, Fernie, B, Flear, D, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Graham, A, Gray, J, Henderson, D, Hunter, E, Laing, J, Mackay, D (W5), MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, Marsden, G, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, McGillivray, J, Millar, D, Munro, L, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Prag, T, Rattray, M, Rimell, G, Rosie, J, Ross, I, Rowantree, R, Sinclair, A, Smith, G, Thurso, M, Wilson, C, Wood, H.

For the Amendment:

Brown, I, Cairns, P, Clark, B, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Hendry, D, MacDonald, L, Munro, P, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Ross, G, Sinclair, G, Smith, M, Wynd, B.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) that a generic post, at two levels, should be established to provide support
   to children in classrooms;
(ii) that a task force should be established immediately to consider the details
   of job descriptions for the generic post and to consider implementation
   issues;
(iii)that the Cross Party Working Group should continue its work and should
   now monitor progress of the detailed work of the task group and make
   recommendations to the Council on the revised classroom support
   arrangements;
(iv)that implementation of the new generic post should be from August
    2012; and
(v)that the £319,000 savings in the financial year 2011/12 should be met
   from funding allocated by the Scottish Government in relation to
   negotiations on teachers’ terms and conditions and that the funding
    implications of future support arrangements should be considered as part of
   the Council’s ongoing budget setting process.

The Council also AGREED the Minutes of Meetings of the Classroom Support Needs Cross Party Working Group held on 17 May, 7 June and 15 June 2011 as circulated.

12. Northern Joint Police Board

There had been circulated for information Minutes of Meetings of the Northern Joint Police Board held on 28 January 2011 and 20 April 2011 – the terms of which were NOTED.

13. Highlands and Islands Fire Board

There had been circulated for information Minutes of Meetings of the Highland and Islands Fire Board held on 28 January 2011, 30 March and 8 April 2011 – the terms of which were NOTED.

14. Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board

There had been circulated for information Minutes of Meeting of the Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board held on 5 January 2011 – the terms of which were NOTED.

15. Membership of Strategic Committees, etc

Members were advised that Mrs G Sinclair had confirmed that she had joined the Highland SNP Group on the Council.

In light of this, and also as a result of the Tain and Easter Ross By-Election, the political make-up of the Council was now as follows –

Ind: 25
Lib Dem: 20
SNP: 18
Lab: 7
IMG: 6
Ind Alliance: 4

The formula in respect of the number of places on Strategic Committees remained unchanged at 7/5/5/2/2/1.

In this regard, Updated Information in regard to Committee Memberships (69kb pdf) had been tabled.

Decision

The Council AGREED the changes to membership of Strategic Committees, etc as tabled.

16. Audit and Scrutiny Committee – Appointment of Chair

Members were advised that Mrs J Urquhart had confirmed that, in light of her recent election as a member of the Scottish Parliament and her associated workload, it had become necessary for her to resign, with effect from 23 May 2011, as Chair of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee although she would remain as a Member of that Committee.

Motion from the Independent Members Group

Mr G M Smith, seconded by Miss J Campbell moved, on behalf of the Independent Members Group, that the current Vice Chair of the Committee, Mr D Bremner, should be appointed as Chair.

Motion from the SNP Group

Mr D Hendry, seconded by Ms M Smith moved, on behalf of the SNP moved, on behalf of the SNP Group, that Mr D Fallows should be appointed as Chair.

On a vote being taken, Mr Bremner received 6 votes and Mr Fallows received 39 votes with 10 abstentions.

Votes for Mr Bremner:

Bremner, D, Campbell, J, Crawford, J, Davidson, M, Rosie, J, Smith, G.

Votes for Mr Fallows:

Alston, D, Black, S, Brown, I, Cairns, P, Cameron, D, Campbell, I, Christie, A, Clark, B, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Flear, D, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Graham, A, Gray, J, Henderson, A, Henderson, D, Hendry, D, Hunter, E, MacDonald, L, Mackay, D (W5), Marsden, G, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Rimell, G, Ross, G, Ross, I, Sinclair, G, Smith, M, Thurso, M, Wood, H, Wynd, B.

Abstentions:

Barclay, B, Corbett , P, Douglas, J, Durham, R, Fernie, B, Fraser, L, Laing, J, MacLeod, K, Prag, T, Wilson, C.

Decision

The Council AGREED to appoint Mr D Fallows as Chair of the Audit & Scrutiny Committee.

17. Notices of Motion

The following Notices of Motion had been received in accordance with Standing Order 10.1 –

(i) “At the Standards Commission Roadshow on 22 February 2011, informal verbal advice was given that a Councillor expressing a wider view on a particular issue did not necessarily preclude them from taking part in a specific planning application concerning the issue.

We, the undernoted Members, would request that the Council write to the Standards Commission to get clarity on this issue”.

Signed

Mr R J Coghill , Mr R Balfour

At this point, the Assistant Chief Executive confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 25.2, and as the two signatories were not present at the meeting, the Notice of Motion would fall unless moved by another Member and seconded at the meeting or postponed with the agreement of the Council.

Thereafter, Mr J Crawford, seconded by Miss J Campbell, confirmed that they would move the terms of the Notice of Motion in the absence of the two signatories.

During discussion, it was suggested that there had been an apprehension that any views expressed in a general public meeting or on the doorstep would prohibit Members speaking again on a planning issue in the Chamber. However, the verbal advice given at the Standards Commission Roadshow appeared to suggest that a Councillor expressing a wider view on a particular issue did not necessarily preclude them from taking part in a specific planning application concerning the issue and this required to be clarified with the Standards Commission.

In contrast, reference was made to Paragraph 7.11 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct where it was clearly stated that if Members proposed to take part in the decision making process they could not give grounds to doubt their impartiality. Further, they must not make public statements about a pending decision to ensure that they were not seen to be prejudging a decision which would be made at the meeting where it could be anticipated that the information required to make the decision would be available. Also, they must not indicate or imply their support or opposition to a proposal, or declare their voting intention, before the meeting. It was however important to note that a Member could seek to influence policy development and the freedom to do that was apparent in the Code. It was also possible for Members to make representations on a planning application but they could not then vote or participate in the decision making on that application.

Thereafter, Mr J Crawford, seconded by Miss J Campbell, MOVED the Notice of Amendment as detailed.

As an AMENDMENT, Mr I Ross, seconded by Mrs I McCallum, moved that the Council should acknowledge the publication of the revised Councillors’ Code of Conduct and recognise that the position of Councillors in respect of their role as a Member of a Council Planning Committee was clear and required no further clarification.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 4 votes and the AMENDMENT received 51 votes with 2 abstentions and the AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes cast having been as follows –

For the Motion:

Bremner, D, Campbell, J, Corbett, P, Crawford, J.

For the Amendment:

Alston, D, Black, S, Brown, I, Cairns, P, Cameron, D, Campbell, I, Christie, A, Clark, B, Davidson, M, Douglas, J, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Fernie, B, Flear, D, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, C, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Gormley, B, Graham, A, Gray, J, Hendry, D, Laing, J, MacDonald, L, Mackay, D (W5), Marsden, G, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, McGillivray, J, Millar, D, Munro, L, Munro, P, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Pedersen, R, Prag, T, Renwick, I, Rimell, G, Rosie, J, Ross, G, Ross, I, Rowantree, R, Sinclair, A, Sinclair, G, Smith, G, Smith, M, Thurso, M, Wood, H, Wynd, B.

Abstentions:

Henderson, D, Macleod, K.

Decision

The Council AGREED to acknowledge the publication of the revised Councillors’ Code of Conduct and to recognise that the position of Councillors in respect of their role as a Member of a Council Planning Committee was clear and required no further clarification.

(ii) “As funds have been identified that remove the urgent need to make the savings from reducing classroom assistants, we move that the Highland Council halt the review and re-draft the remit to formally remove the current threat of job losses to all classroom assistants.

A new review should focus on educational outcomes and the support required to deliver effective delivery of the Curriculum for Excellence. Any budgetary issues should only be considered once the needs of our schools, pupils and communities have been identified.

It should consult properly and effectively with all groups to provide detailed, practical evidence to the new Working Group whose membership will be drawn through the political balance of the Council”.

Signed

Mr D Hendry, Mr B Gormley

At this point, and in view of the decision taken earlier in the meeting, both Mr Hendry and Mr Gormley confirmed that, although they stood by the wording within the Notice of Motion and also the comments which they had made earlier in regard to the debate on the Classroom Support Needs Review, it was clear that the Notice was unlikely to achieve the necessary support to achieve the Suspension of Standing Orders which would be required to discuss it and it was therefore withdrawn.

Decision

The Council NOTED the confirmation from both signatories that this Notice of Motion was now withdrawn.

18. National Centre of Excellence in Traditional Music

Declaration of Interest - Mr A Henderson declared a non financial interest in this item on the grounds that he had family members who were employed at the National Centre of Excellence in Traditional Music but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. HC-14-11 (316kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which provided detail on actions taken following the Council’s decision to withdraw funding from the National Centre of Excellence in Traditional Music with effect from the end of July 2012.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the proposed withdrawal of funding had allowed a significant period of time for consideration of alternative funding and cost reduction and shortly after the Council meeting in February discussions had commenced with the West Highland College on possible partnering and cost reductions. In this regard, draft proposals on partnering aimed at increasing activity and delivering new courses, including higher education in traditional music, had been submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.

Thereafter, the Cabinet Secretary had written to the Leader of the Council intimating a possible offer of grant support under the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 up to £200,000 for an initial 3 year period from 2012/13 to 2014/15 in respect of partnership between the West Highland College and the National Centre for Excellence in Traditional Music. This offer of grant was dependent on agreement by the Cabinet Secretary to a detailed Business Proposal which had now been agreed by the Board of West Highland College and had been attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

It was confirmed that the Business Plan was based upon generating increased income and efficiency through closer collaboration across the Centre, the High School and West Highland College and also increased levels of activity in partnership with West Highland College supported through the Scottish Government grant which had been offered. This would allow the continuation of high level tuition for young people and a potentially enhanced national profile for the Centre in traditional music, enhanced levels of activity focused on the Centre and the scope for greater impact and future development of the role of the Centre, both nationally and internationally. Core funding would still be required from Highland Council, albeit at a reduced level, and the projected savings in the sum of £171,000 would start to be made in the current financial year.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

thanks should be conveyed to all those responsible, including the Leader of the Administration, for the production of the proposed Business Plan and for the considerable amount of work which had been undertaken in this regard;
this was excellent news for the area and particularly for current and future students who would benefit from the proposals;
substantial progress had been made in terms of savings and additional income and this was warmly welcomed on behalf of the wider community of the Highlands; and
• this represented excellent co-operation between the Highland Council, Plockton High School, the National Centre and the Scottish Government and special thanks was conveyed to the Cabinet Secretary for his personal involvement and the substantial grant which had been offered over a 3 year period.

Decision

The Council AGREED the proposals set out in the Business Plan which had been attached to the report and that funding should be identified from within the Education, Culture and Sport Service to meet the reduced anticipated costs of £236,000 in the financial year 2012/13.

19. High Life Highland – Independent Directors

There had been circulated Report No. HC-15-11 (19kb pdf) dated 14 June 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which provided information in regard to the nomination of Independent Directors to serve on the Board of High Life Highland.

There had also been tabled Report No. HC/15a/11 dated 21 June 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which sought approval for the following nominees to be appointed as Independent Directors of High Life Highland – Mr Craig Ewan, Mr Douglas Graham, Ms Linda Kirkland, Ms Elizabeth McArdle, Mr Donald McLachlan, Mr Kenneth Nicol, Mr John Watt and Mr Laurence Young.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues –

the quantity and quality of the applicants who had applied to serve on the Board had been outstanding and they were considered to be of the highest calibre;
this was an unpaid position and as such the applicants would be giving up their own time to undertake the duties required;
the age range of the applicants being put forward for appointment was excellent and they had all demonstrated a wide knowledge of the Highland area through their current occupations;
only the names of the nominated Directors had been circulated with the agenda papers and this created difficulties for some Members in that they were unaware of the background of the applicants but were still being asked to approve their appointment;
short biographies for each of the Independent Directors would therefore be helpful for Members and these should be circulated following the meeting; and
the Interview Panel had been appointed and trusted by the Council to interview the applicants and to make recommendations thereafter as to appointments and this process had been undertaken as agreed and was considered to have worked well.

Decision

The Council AGREED the appointment of the nominees as detailed as Independent Directors of High Life Highland.

It was also AGREED that further biographical information on the new Independent Directors should be circulated to Members following the meeting.

20. Moratorium on Rural School Closures

There had been circulated Report No. HC-16-11 (120kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which provided information on the request from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that Local Authorities should impose a Moratorium on proposals for rural school closures.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning had set out his concerns regarding the operation of the current legislation in regard to consultation on school review and, against the background of his concerns, had asked all Local Authorities to impose a Moratorium for one year with effect from 20 June 2011. This period would be used to allow a Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education to review the legislation and its application and to make recommendations on how to reflect best practice.

The Commission would also examine the links between rural schools and the preservation, support and development of rural communities and would look at funding issues surrounding rural schools.

In this regard, it was confirmed that the Council had a robust and rigorous process of sustainable school estate review in place which was firmly based on legislation and took account of all factors in the legislation such as educational and community impact. These procedures were based on full engagement with communities and recent decisions taken by the Council in relation to statutory consultations in the Greater Fort William area had been seen to comply fully with the requirement of the current legislation when they had been called in by the Cabinet Secretary who had subsequently unreservedly approved them.

Currently, the Council was engaged in pre-statutory consultation preparatory works in Caithness and Easter Ross which were well advanced and proposals for the commencement of the next stage of review were currently scheduled to be submitted to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in August 2011. At this point, it was confirmed that it was open to the Council to consider continuing these pre-statutory consultation processes if Members were so minded.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues –

since the consultations in Caithness and Easter Ross were at a pre-statutory consultation stage, it would be legitimate to continue them and the recommendations should be amended accordingly;
there had been very thorough and rigorous processes operating within Highland Council which had focused on associated school groups and had taken an overview based on educational benefit as to the demographics and the long term interests of the children;
a meeting had been sought with the Cabinet Secretary to discuss the way in which the Council was proceeding and the ability to continue proceeding in that way and also to request that the Highland Council should be given a place on the Commission; and
Local Members were in agreement that the pre-consultation processes in Caithness and Easter Ross should be continued.

Decision

The Council AGREED to accept the imposition of a one year Moratorium on rural school closures – other than continuing pre-statutory consultations in Caithness and Easter Ross which were currently taking place.

The Council also AGREED that an urgent meeting should be sought with the Cabinet Secretary to discuss current procedures and the broader issues relating to the education of pupils in rural schools.

21. Highland Council Statement of Accounts – Year Ended 31 March 2011

Members were advised that the Statement of Accounts (unaudited) for 2010/11 would be presented to Audit Scotland by the prescribed date of 30 June 2011 and were available in the Members’ Library and on the Council website for information.

It was also confirmed that the Accounts and the External Auditor’s report would be considered by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee later in the autumn and the Audited Accounts would be presented to the Council later in the year for approval.

During discussion, the Budget Leader, on behalf of the Council, conveyed his thanks to the Depute Chief Executive & Director of Finance and his staff for the work which had been undertaken within very tight timescales and within a new higher standard of accounting and also welcomed the updated information which had been provided on the higher level of balances which had now been restored to the appropriate level.

Tribute was also paid to the Depute Chief Executive & Director of Finance in advance of his impending retirement from the Council, including reference to the very high quality of the work which he had undertaken over recent years, the quality of the team which he had led within the Finance Service and the wise advice and knowledge which he had always provided for Members of the Council.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position as detailed.

22. Annual Efficiency Statement 2010/11

There had been circulated Report No. HC-17-11 (89kb pdf) dated 13 June 2011 by the Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance which set out the Council’s Annual Efficiency Statement (AES) for 2010/11.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that for the period 2008/9 to 2010/11 the Scottish Government had set an efficiency savings target of 2% per annum across all areas of the public sector and the Council’s assumed share of this for each of the three years had been £8.0m.

For 2010/11, the Council had achieved efficiency savings of £8.961m and the details of these savings had been contained in Annex 1 of the Annual Efficiency Statement which had been appended to the report.

In this regard, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) had asked for all Annual Efficiency Statements for 2010/11 to be submitted by 19 August 2011 in order that an amalgamated local government efficiency return could be made to the Scottish Government by the end of August.

During discussion, the importance of the scrutiny of the efficiency agenda was emphasised. In this regard, thanks were conveyed to the previous Chair of the Audit & Scrutiny Committee, Mrs J Urquhart, and in particular the Members of the Scrutiny Working Group which had been looking at the Council’s efficiency agenda over the previous year and had made clear recommendations for areas of improvement which would be addressed by all Services.

It was also suggested that reference to the fundamental scrutiny role undertaken by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee should be included in future Annual Efficiency Statements.

Decision

The Council AGREED the Annual Efficiency Statement for 2010/11 as circulated.

23. Recruitment to the Post of Director of Finance

There had been circulated Report No HC-18-11 (13kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Chief Executive which advised that the Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance had intimated that he would retire from his post with effect from 30 September 2011.

During a summary of the report, the Chief Executive paid tribute to the current Director of Finance and confirmed that this post was a key member of the Officer leadership team and played a vital role for the Council which would face some very difficult decisions on financial matters over the next 5 year period. In this regard, the Director of Finance was required to provide the Chief Executive and the Council with strategic financial direction, leadership and professional advice and to manage the Finance Service which also included responsibility for the Council’s procurement and shared business support functions.

The post was also required to ensure that the statutory requirements were met in relation to all financial matters and to have responsibility for the proper financial governance and administration of the Council and all its activities in terms of Section 95 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (the Proper Officer).

It was therefore proposed that this critical role should be advertised immediately within the Council’s usual recruitment procedures.

In regard to the combined role of Depute Chief Executive, which was currently undertaken by the Director of Finance but was not specifically linked to that particular post, it was suggested that, given the strength of the current management team, a selection process should be undertaken and that this should be delegated to the Chief Executive, Convener, Leader of the Administration, Chair of the Resources Committee, Budget Leader and the remaining Group Leaders on the basis that a salary enhancement of 10% of the Director’s post would be paid for undertaking this role. At this point, the Chief Executive highlighted a correction to the report in that although specific reference to the Budget Leader’s involvement in this selection process had been included within Paragraph 2.2.2, it had been omitted in error from the recommendations.

During discussion, it was suggested that there could be possibilities for the consideration of joint working with other partners and there was the potential at this point for a review of management structures within the Council, particularly in relation to Finance, and that a temporary acting up post should be created in the meantime to allow that review to be undertaken.

Thereafter, Mrs C Wilson, seconded by Dr M E M Foxley, MOVED the recommendations as detailed in the report, together with the additional correction in regard to the selection process for the combined role of Depute Chief Executive which had been highlighted.

Mr D Fallows, seconded by Mr D Hendry, moved as an AMENDMENT that recommendation (i) within the report should be amended to allow the opportunity to be taken for a review of senior management structures within the Council to be undertaken and that a temporary acting up post should be appointed in the meantime pending a further report back to the full Council.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 35 votes and the AMENDMENT received 14 votes with no abstentions and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes cast having been as follows –

For the Motion:

Alston, D, Black, S, Campbell, I, Christie, A, Davidson, M, Douglas, J, Fernie, B, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Graham, A, Gray, J, Henderson, A, Henderson, D, Hunter, E, Laing, J, Mackay, D (W5), MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, Millar, D, Munro, L, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Prag, T, Rimell, G, Ross, I, Sinclair, A, Smith, G, Thurso, M, Wilson, C, Wood, H.

For the Amendment:

Brown, I, Cairns, P, Fallows, D, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Hendry, D, Kerr, D, MacDonald, L, Munro, P, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Ross, G, Smith, M, Wynd, B.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) that recruitment to the post of Director of Finance should take place
   immediately using the Council’s agreed recruitment procedures as follows –
    Recruitment Panel to comprise the Convener, Leader of the Administration,
   Chair and Vice Chair of the Resources Committee, 2 SNP Members, 1
   Labour Member, 1 IMG Member, 1 IAG Member and (in place of the Chair
   and Vice Chair of the Parent Committee which in this case was the
    Resources Committee) the Budget Leader and 1 Strategic Chair from the
   Independent Group in order to maintain the political balance; and
(ii) that it be delegated to the Chief Executive, Convener, Leader of the
   Administration, Chair of Resources Committee, Budget Leader and the
   remaining Group Leaders to undertake a selection process in relation to the
   combined role of Depute Chief Executive and that this should be restricted
   to post holders at Director level.

24. Scotland’s Six Cities – A Shared Vision for Scotland’s Success

There had been circulated Report No. HC-19-11 (206kb pdf) dated 14 June 2011 by the Chief Executive which confirmed that, following on from an initial Conference in November 2010 and a follow up summit in February 2011, Scotland’s Six Cities had now agreed a shared vision with six shared priorities and values.

This represented an opportunity for Highland Council to promote its city/region and to lobby the Scottish Government for support in taking forward key priorities. Cities were seen as key drivers of Scotland’s economy and as such were now part of the Deputy First Minister’s portfolio in her role as Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the shared vision reflected that there was an interdependency between Inverness City and the Highland region which meant that strengthening one would benefit the other and vice versa. Key priorities included the emerging themes in the new City Vision (Inverness City Centre Development Brief and Inverness College University of Highlands and Islands campus), A96 Corridor development and planned expansion of Inverness eastwards over the following 30-35 year period, connectivity (trunk road network, single track rail infrastructure between Inverness and Perth and Inverness and Aberdeen), tourism, broadband, development of centres of excellence in health sciences and the wind, wave and tidal renewables sector.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues –

A very productive dialogue event had been held in Edinburgh on the previous evening and this had been attended by the Provost of Inverness, the Chair of the Planning, Environment and Development Committee, Director of Planning and Development and Corporate Manager (Highland) and it had been very heartening to note that there was a widespread recognition in terms of the importance of the hinterlands for the whole of Scotland;
there was a genuine desire and willingness amongst all cities to work productively together in the pursuit of collective aims in line with the very positive approach in this regard from the Scottish Government;
there had been a real acceptance of Inverness as a city region and the benefits which this could bring for the Highlands as a whole and as such there was a need to drive forward proposals in relation to sustainable economic growth, support for key sectors and the development of strong international links and access;
there was an increasing need to recognise Inverness and the ‘Highlands & Islands’ region in that there was a very good working relationship with the other authorities and bodies and the key message to be conveyed was that what was good for Inverness City was also good for the wider region of the Highlands and Islands and vice versa;
• the synergy between the rural areas and the City of Inverness was vitally important and connectivity in particular was especially important in this regard; and
there was a need to include more emphasis on environment and heritage in future priorities where possible.

Decision

The Council AGREED the key priorities for the City of Inverness and Region as outlined in Section 3 of the report.

25. Scheme of Delegation and Administration to Committee and Sub Committees and to Officers - Planning

There had been circulated Report No. HC-20-11 (289kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive which detailed amendments which were required to be made to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation and Administration to Committees and Sub Committees and to Officers in advance of the Annual Review in September in order to take account of the requirements of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and its secondary legislation and in relation to minor changes required in regard to the Building (Scotland) Act 2003.

At this point, the Convener, on behalf of the Council, conveyed his thanks to Richard Hartland, Head of Planning and Building Standards, for the work which he had undertaken for Highland Council over recent years and wished him well in his new position in Moray Council.

Decision

The Council AGREED the proposed amendments to Part IV of the Scheme of Delegation and Administration to Committees and Sub Committees and to Officers in relation to the Planning & Development Service as detailed in the report.

26. Review of Committees, Sub Committees, etc

There had been circulated Report No. HC-21-11 (50kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Chief Executive which confirmed that, at the Council meeting on 16 December 2010, it had been agreed that a review of the current arrangements for Committees, Sub Committees, etc should be undertaken. In this regard, the report brought forward suggestions in relation to the current Strategic Committees, Sub Committees, Working Groups, etc for consideration.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that, at the Council meeting on 16 December 2010, Members had agreed amendments to the Council’s management structure and also that a review of Committees, Sub Committees, Working Groups, etc should be undertaken. In this regard, a summary of current arrangements was provided together with proposed new arrangements in relation to the following –

the business of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and Gaelic Committee;
the operation of the current three Planning Application Committees;
the business of the Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group, Climate Change Working Group and Community Benefit Working Group;
proposals for the formal deletion of a number of ‘short life’ Working Groups;
the business of the Inverness City Committee;
the integration of health and social care services and specifically the potential future impact on the work of the Social Work Service, Education, Culture and Sport Service, Housing and Property Service, Housing and Social Work Committee, Joint Committee for Children and Young People and the Joint Highland Council/NHS Highland Leadership and Performance Group;
the work of the Audit & Scrutiny Committee; and
the need for Members to be fully briefed at Ward Business Meetings in relation to local developments as part of any new arrangements to be implemented.

In this respect, it was suggested that, in order to allow full and detailed consideration of the proposals within the report and also any other proposals which Members might wish to bring forward, the review should be referred to the Governance Review Group in the first instance on the basis that recommendations from the Group would be presented to the next meeting of the Council on 8 September 2011 if possible for final approval.

The revised remit for the Group – which would be expanded to 11 Members to reflect the current political balance of the Council – would be to consider the current Strategic Committee structure, including Sub Committees, Working Groups, etc in order to review performance and to seek efficiencies wherever possible, to consider combining the business of Committees where appropriate and to provide options for consideration by the Council thereafter – one of which might be the status quo.

During discussion, it was suggested that two additional groups should be added to Appendix 1 within the report, namely (under the Inverness City Committee) the ‘Clach Working Group’ and (under the Northern Joint Police Board) the group which was working on the Shared Services agenda.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) to refer the Review of Committees and Sub Committees, etc to the
   Governance Review Group;
(ii) that a further report should be presented to the next meeting on 8
   September 2011 if possible with recommendations for consideration and
   approval;
(iii)the remit of the Governance Review Group has detailed in Section 4.3 of
   the report; and
(iv)to invite nominations for membership of the Governance Review Group
   based on 11 Members (3 Independent, 3 Liberal Democrat, 2 SNP, 1
   Labour, I IMG and 1 IAG).

27. Code of Corporate Governance

There had been circulated Report No. HC-22-11 (55kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive which provided information on progress with the actions agreed in the Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2010/11 and detailed the proposed Code for 2011/12.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Council had prepared a Code of Corporate Governance on an annual basis since 2002 as agreed by the previous Audit and Standards Committee and following advice from CIPFA and SOLACE on best practice on the matter.

The report therefore finalised the Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2010/11, advised of areas where further action was required and detailed the Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2011/12 which had been approved by the Audit & Scrutiny Committee on 9 June 2011.

During discussion, the importance of good governance was emphasised and also the scrutiny which was provided through the work of the Audit & Scrutiny Committee.

Decision

The Council NOTED the progress on actions within the Code of Corporate Governance for 2010/11.

The Council also AGREED the Code of Corporate Governance for 2011/12 as detailed.

28. Community Council Financial Arrangements

There had been circulated Report No. HC-23-11 (98kb pdf) dated 1 June 2011 by the Chief Executive which outlined the current resourcing arrangements for Community Councils and proposed, in light of the new Scheme and the current funding anomalies, that new arrangements be introduced from April 2012.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that a new Scheme for Community Councils had been approved at the Council meeting on 3 March 2011 which contained the provision that the Council’s financial support for Community Councils should be based on the formula of a minimum flat rate sum with an additional amount per head of population. However, current arrangements did not use this formula and in addition there were a number of anomalies within the arrangements which required to be addressed.

In this regard, it was confirmed that the total budget for Community Councils was £207,413 with an average grant settlement of £1,347 although this varied considerably and the current funding levels dated from 2002 when an unsuccessful attempt had been made to equalise funding. It was felt that any revised financial arrangements should now focus on the following principles – the Council grant should be more closely aligned with the running costs of Community Councils, core running costs should not show huge variations Highland wide, Community Councils should be enabled to enhance their engagement with local communities and an element of the grant should reflect this principle, all costs associated with Community Councils including elections should be contained within the current budget allowance and Community Councils should be encouraged to actively manage their finances and not allow large balances to accrue year on year unless for specific identifiable projects.

Following the review which had been undertaken, Members were now asked to consider three potential funding options for the future funding of Community Councils - Option 1 which presented a core sum for all Community Councils plus an additional sum per head of population and Options 2 and 3 which varied the core sum in order reflect the rural nature of some Community Councils and the additional expenses incurred by the large geographical areas which they covered. In terms of implementation, it was proposed that the new arrangements should begin in April 2012 and be staggered over a two year period in order to mitigate the impact on Community Councils who would receive a reduction in their level of funding. It was also proposed that in future financial arrangements would be reviewed alongside the four yearly review of the Scheme in order to ensure consistency in the allocation of funding.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues –

whilst it was acknowledged that there had been a need to review Community Council financial arrangements, there were concerns regarding taking a decision on this issue now without further consultation being undertaken, particularly in rural areas and in regard to those Community Councils across the Highlands who stood to lose a significant amount of finance through the new arrangements;
reference was made to the funding arrangement principles within the report and specifically that ‘Community Councils should be enabled to enhance their engagement with local communities and an element of the grant should reflect this’;
there were real concerns about the loss of grant which would impact on the ability of Community Councils to engage with their communities;
Community Councils were being asked to contribute more in terms of training, consultation etc which fed back into statutory consultation and the effect of reduced funding would be devastating in some areas;
there was a need to make Community Councils feel appreciated and supported and a reduction in funding would not have this effect;
extremely good value for money was currently being received from Community Councils and this should not be put at risk;
there were still a number of inconsistencies across Community Councils in terms of financial arrangements and other issues and full consultation was therefore required before taking a decision;
consideration should be given to allocation of the Ward Discretionary Budget to Community Councils;
the loss of funding would affect the ability of Community Councils to achieve match funding for projects in their areas;
there was a limited amount of funding available and the Council was required to devise a fair method of allocation across all Community Councils; and
widespread consultation had already been undertaken on the new Community Council Scheme and a decision on financial arrangements now needed to be taken by the Council.

At this point, Mrs J Douglas, seconded by Mr D Fallows, MOVED that the Council should defer the decision to allow consultation and dialogue with Community Councils on options for the new funding formula, including the best way to ensure that it reflected the breadth of work done by Community Councils, especially in terms of engagement with their local communities.

As an AMENDMENT, Mr J Gray, seconded by Mr B Wynd, moved that the Council should proceed to vote on the options within the report.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 23 votes and the AMENDMENT received 25 votes with 1 abstention and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes cast having been as follows –

For the Motion:

Black, S, Brown, I, Cairns, P, Campbell, I, Campbell, J, Davidson, M, Douglas, J, Fallows, D, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Henderson, A, Hendry, D, Kerr, D, MacLean, A, Marsden, G, Munro, L, Munro, P, Pedersen, R, Rimell, G, Ross, G, Rowantree, R, Sinclair, A, Smith, M.

For the Amendment:

Alston, D, Durham, R, Fernie, B, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, L, Gray, J, Henderson, D, Laing, J, MacDonald, L, Mackay, D (W5), McAllister, E, McCallum, I, Millar, D, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, P, Prag, T, Renwick, I, Ross, I, Smith, G, Thurso, M, Wilson, C, Wood, H, Wynd, B.

Abstention:

Fraser, H

Thereafter, and in regard to the Option on which future funding for Community Councils would be based, in the first vote the number of votes cast were as follows – Option 1 (16 votes), Option 2 (19 votes) and Option 3 (7 votes) with 8 abstentions. At this point, Option 3 was eliminated.

For Option 1:

Alston, D, Brown, I, Campbell, J, Durham, R, Fraser, C, Fraser, L, Gray, J, McAllister, E, Munro, P, Murphy, B, Parr, F, Ross, G, Sinclair, A, Smith, G, Wilson, C, Wynd, B.

For Option 2:

Cairns, P, Campbell, I, Davidson, M, Fernie, B, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Gormley, B, Laing, J, MacDonald, L, Mackay, D (W5), MacLean, A, Millar, D, Park, S, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Ross, I , Rowantree, R, Thurso, M.

For Option 3:

Black, S, Henderson, D, MacLeod, K, Marsden, G, McCallum, I, Prag, T, Rimell, G.

Abstentions:

Douglas, J, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Henderson, A, Hendry, D, Kerr, D, Munro, L, Smith, M.

In a second vote between Option 1 and Option 2, the number of votes cast were as follows – Option 1 (18 votes) and Option 2 (25 votes) with 8 abstentions and Option 2 was therefore CARRIED.

For Option 1:

Alston, D, Brown, I, Campbell, J, Durham, R, Fraser, L, Gray, J, Henderson, D, McAllister, E, Munro, P, Murphy, B, Parr, F, Ross, G, Sinclair, A, Smith, G, Thurso, M, Wilson, C, Wood, H, Wynd, B.

For Option 2:

Black, S, Cairns, P, Campbell, I, Davidson, M, Fernie, B, Ford, J, Foxley, M, Fraser, C, Fraser, H, Gormley, B, Laing, J, MacDonald, L, Mackay, D (W5), MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, Marsden, G, McCallum, I, Millar, D, Park, S, Pedersen, R, Prag, T, Renwick, I, Rimell, G, Ross, I, Rowantree, R.

Abstentions:

Douglas, J, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Henderson, A, Hendry, D, Kerr, D, Munro, L, Smith, M.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) the principles for new resourcing arrangements to Community Councils as
   outlined at Section 3.1 of the report;
(ii) Option 2 on which future funding for Community Councils would be based;
   and
(iii)that the new arrangements should be implemented from April 2012 but
   that their introduction should be staggered over a two year period.

At this point, the thanks of the Council were conveyed to Mr Ian Hargrave (Corporate Manager, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and Mrs Alison Clark (Policy Officer) for the work which had been undertaken in this regard.

29. Community Council Elections – November 2011

There had been circulated Report No. HC-24-11 (18kb pdf) dated 15 June 2011 by the Chief Executive which referred to the decision taken by the Council on 3 March 2011 to introduce a revised Scheme of Community Councils with effect from 1 April 2011 which stated that elections to the new Community Councils would take place in November 2011. In this regard, the report suggested the processes and procedure for the implementation of those elections.

During a summary of the report, and in regard to the Returning Officer, it was suggested that in this instance, and to ensure consistency of the electoral process across the Council, that the Chief Executive should be appointed and that he could, if he so decided, appoint Depute Returning Officers to support him in that role. In terms of the method of election, the Scheme provided that the elections should be run across the whole Highland Council area or devolved administrative areas as deemed appropriate, that all election should be carried out by means of a postal ballot and that Community Councillors should be elected on a simple majority basis.

In relation to the timetable, it was suggested that the day of the Community Council elections should be Wednesday, 16 November 2011 and that the administration of the electoral process should be carried out in the current three administrative areas as follows – Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (40 Community Councils), Ross, Skye & Lochaber (68 Community Councils) and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (48 Community Councils). Nominations would be handled on a Ward basis by Ward Managers who would be responsible for validating or rejecting nominations and preparation of the relevant ballot papers where required. It was proposed that the elections should be held by postal ballot and that a further area of work involved the promotion of Community Councils amongst 16 and 17 year olds who would for the first time be entitled to stand and vote in Community Council elections.

Finally, in relation to the resource implications, it was suggested at the meeting that funding should come from the Elections budget and also from some of the area budgets under the Chief Executive’s sections where possible.

During discussion, it was highlighted that there were some Community Councils who had not yet agreed with the new Scheme because they had felt strongly that it was not representative of what they or their communities wanted.

The introduction of a supplementary Electoral Register was also welcomed and it was suggested that this should be updated on a rolling basis in line with other similar Registers.

Decision

The Council AGREED the Community Council election arrangements as outlined in the report.

It was also AGREED that the funding should come from the Elections budget and from some of the area budgets under the Chief Executive’s sections where possible.

30. Revised Arrangements – Licensing Board and Licensing Forum

The Council was advised that it was proposed that, with immediate effect, the Legal Manager (Regulatory Services) should be appointed as Clerk to the Highland Licensing Board.

Decision

The Council AGREED to formally appoint the Legal Manager (Regulatory Services) as Clerk to the Highland Licensing Board in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.

31. Caithness Horizons

The Council was advised that Mr D MacKay and Lady M Thurso had confirmed that they wished to step down from the Board of Caithness Horizons.

Decision

The Council AGREED that Mr W MacKay and Mr J Rosie should now be appointed to the Board of Caithness Horizons as detailed.

32. Caithness and North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership – Advisory Board

The Council was advised that, following the resignation of Mrs K MacNab, there was now a vacancy on the Advisory Board of the Caithness & North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership. In this regard, it was confirmed that the current arrangement was for 3 Highland Council Members to sit on the Advisory Board – 2 Members from the Caithness Wards and 1 Member from the North West Sutherland Ward.

Decision

The Council AGREED to appoint Mrs G Ross to the Caithness and North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership Advisory Board as detailed.

33. Deeds Executed

Members NOTED that the list of Deeds (21kb pdf) and other documents which had been executed on behalf of the Council since the meeting held on 12 May 2011 were available in the Members’ Library and on the Council’s Website.

34. Recess Powers

The Council AGREED that, during the recess period, powers should be granted to the Chief Executive, Depute Chief Executive & Director of Finance, Assistant Chief Executive, Directors and Corporate Manager, in consultation with the Convener, Leader of the Council’s Administration or relevant Chairman, to deal with issues arising during that time and that a report should be prepared for the first meeting of the Council or relevant Committee following the period where these powers had been exercised.

35. Exclusion of the Public

The Council AGREED to resolve that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 6 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

36. Caithness Heat and Power Ltd

Declarations of Interest

Mr I Ross, Mr J Gray, Mr J Laing and Mr D Henderson declared non financial interests in this item on the grounds of being Directors of Caithness Heat and Power but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interests did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

Mr D Kerr declared a financial interest in this item as a Council house tenant but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion.

There had been circulated to Members only Joint Report No. HC/25/11 dated 21 June 2011 by the Chief Executive, Depute Chief Executive & Director of Finance, Director of Housing & Property and Acting Head of Legal Services which set out the legal and commercial background to the negotiations which would now take place between Caithness Heat & Power and its customers to establish the financial consequences for the Council.

Decision

The Council AGREED the recommendations as detailed in the report.

37. Sale of Common Good Land - Dornoch

There had been circulated to Members only Report No. HC/26/11 dated 12 May 2011 by the Corporate Manager (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) which proposed the sale of land belonging to Dornoch Common Good.

Decision

The Council AGREED the recommendation as detailed in the report.

The meeting ended at 5.10 pm.